9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that The lower authorities have not examined the legal aspects properly to come to conclusion for correct classification of the goods in question. Hence in our considered view the matter needs to be remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals). It is noticed that the said order takes note of the HSN Explanatory notes part (III) which lays down the criteria for classification of parts and accessories. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the impugned order does not take notice of this explanatory note. The criteria laid down by the impugned order does not correspond to the criteria laid down in the HSN Explanatory note. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication - appeal allowed by way of reman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n view of above, the learned Counsel sought remand of the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for consideration in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal laying down criteria for the classification. 3. Learned AR relied on the impugned order. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that Tribunal in the earlier order No. A/10665/2022 dated 07.06.2022, has observed as follows: 04. Heard both the sides and perused the records. The issue to be decided is whether the Controlled Assembly CVT imported by the appellant is classifiable under CTH 9032 and other items imported are classifiable under CTH 7318 as declared by the appellant or under CTH 8708 as parts and accessories of motor vehicles of heading 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les above conditions require to be satisfied. 4.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) while deciding the classification of the disputed goods, in question, under heading 8708, has not given any finding as to whether all the above conditions which are very important for deciding the classification of goods, satisfy / comply in respect of the disputed goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) findings are silent on this vital aspect of the above provisions. 4.4 Further, we also find that Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in impugned order not given his finding related to classification of goods individually item wise. Whereas Appellant produced the list of 14 items imported vide above Bills of Entry. 4.5 In view of our above observation, we fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
